D&D 5E L&L for 5/12

[Zardnaar]

Extra lame with a side helping of weak sauce.

 

[pemerton]

I'm not a fan of mechanical advantages countered by roleplaying disadvantages, which seem to be at the core of the system.

they've removed game mechanics from the so-called interesting features of magic items and called them "story" features instead. Why have them in the game then, if they are irrelevant to playing the game?

I don't think we can take for granted that there will be no mechanics associated with these side effects of attunement.

In the course of 4e design - especially monster design - they have come up with lots of mechanics for giving effect to very interesting curses and limitations within the context of combat encounters. I think they could fairly easily build on that work to develop mechanics that generalise to non-combat contexts as well, and would make the penalties not simply "story/roleplaying" disadvantages.

 

[Bluenose]

I have the most difficulty with understanding the attunement of magical objects is its limitation in number. Why be limited to three objects, but not four or two? I mean some more powerful magical objects than others should further monopolize more life essence, imho. For example, a dragon orb should count for two or more to compare a climbing ring.

I suspect most magic items won't require attunement. The article talks of powerful ones, and ones that are a significant part of a character's identity - Excalibur for King Arthur would seem like an example. Drizzt is specifically brought up in the article, and has a lot more than three magic items, but it's defensible that the only one that's really significant to him is that Figurine he has. So that's the one he should be attuned to.

Edit: After rereading. Descendant and Ancestor are different things.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I suspect most magic items won't require attunement. The article talks of powerful ones, and ones that are a significant part of a character's identity - Excalibur for King Arthur would seem like an example. Drizzt is specifically brought up in the article, and has a lot more than three magic items, but it's defensible that the only one that's really significant to him is that Figurine he has. So that's the one he should be attuned to.

I can't really agree there. His swords are fairly serious items with names and history and gone on about a great deal too. His panther is so extreme that it's almost more than a magic item - more like an actual NPC. Personally I would expect him to be attuned to all those things.

Attunement seems pretty sensible at first glance, and I hope it gives minor mechanical effects which are cool but increase breadth of abilities, not power, and forces people to make some actual choices.

My concern, though, is that D&D will go down the route it has so often, historically, and use attunement as another opportunity to show Primary Magic Users > Everyone Else. The Fighter and other characters, historically at least (and in the versions of 5E we've seen) benefit from and even "need" magic items vastly more than Wizards or their ilk, because they're far more reliant on mechanical bonuses, and on items in general. A Wizard will probably see genuine choice on what to attune. For a Fighter, though, they are probably looking at a weapon and armour as bare necessity, if attunement gives any kind of mechanical advantage. Which leaves them only one slot for actual interesting stuff.

The simple solution, of course, would be to never give mechanical bonuses which directly increase the power of weapons/armour/etc. Unfortunately, I will be very surprised if, in actuality, this is the case. I expect we will see a lot of stuff which basically ends up as "+1 to hit if attuned" (which is a huge deal). Because the Fighter (etc.) has his weapons and armour factor constantly in combat, and linearly increase his power, he needs to attune them. Because the Wizard in 5E doesn't need any such thing (unlike 4E, where he did), he will still be able to pick and choose.

Hopefully it won't turn out this way, of course. I'd like to be wrong on this prediction, but it really does seem to be the way the wind is blowing on 5E (to me).

Threads worked decently in Earthdawn, note, because pretty much everyone needed them equally.

EDIT - An alternate solution, if it turns out that this is the case, is to simply allow Fighters etc. to attune more magical items (there are a thousand "lore" justifications one could use for this, if desired). For example, if a Fighter "needs" two magical items attuned for practical mechanical reasons (assuming linear power increase bonuses appear from attunement), he could be allowed to attune 5 items overall.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

I don't think we can take for granted that there will be no mechanics associated with these side effects of attunement.

In the course of 4e design - especially monster design - they have come up with lots of mechanics for giving effect to very interesting curses and limitations within the context of combat encounters. I think they could fairly easily build on that work to develop mechanics that generalise to non-combat contexts as well, and would make the penalties not simply "story/roleplaying" disadvantages.

A magic dwarven axe might compel a character to seek out a lost clan home and destroy the dragon that lairs there. A dagger used to carry out sacrifices to Asmodeus might promise great power in return for fealty to the Lord of the Nine Hells. A suit of armor crafted by duergar might repel all attacks, but freeze its wearer helplessly in place when facing the gray dwarves in battle.

Two out of three examples given show only an RPG related drawback. What's more, the drawbacks define a part of the campaign ("seek out lost clan home") and mingle with the defiition of a PC's character ("fealty to Asmodeus"), respectively. I would shy away from such items as DM.

 

[Cyberen]

Attunement is a great placeholder mechanic.
It's an entry point for making magic items, well, *magic*.
Artifact rules have always been great, but designing every item as an artifact is just too much work. Attunement strikes a good compromise imho : every (permanent) item is special, without beign world breaking. Having strings attached can't be a bad thing. They can come with mechanical effects, but even without them, it hooks the PCs to the world through a part of their sheet which was thought of as powergaming galore. Nice !
If you feel they are punishing fighter-types for relying on magical equipment more than magic-types : either don't use +x swords and plate mails, or require the wizards/clerics to attune with their grimoire/divine focus/....
If you want common magic-as-technology a la Eberron, simply ignore attunement.

 

[MarkB]

Two things are left out of this article: Lore and consequences.

For all the description of playing around with items or casting Identify, where is the place for the bard or loremaster to declare "I recognise this - it's the ancient sword Glamdring, forged by Elves in the last age, fabled in song and legend..." followed by a rundown of its known properties?

And what happens when the DM says "you feel compelled to head east to the Lost Clan" and the player says "nah, I'm going to resist that temptation and head off south to find that dragon hoard." Does the urge become a compulsion? Are penalties imposed? Does the item de-attune? And what's the timeframe on these effects?

 

[Li Shenron]

And what happens when the DM says "you feel compelled to head east to the Lost Clan" and the player says "nah, I'm going to resist that temptation and head off south to find that dragon hoard." Does the urge become a compulsion? Are penalties imposed? Does the item de-attune? And what's the timeframe on these effects?

I think attunement is purposefully open-ended, so that each DM can dial its importance in each campaign.

What is going to happen if the DMG details the consequences or drawbacks? As usual, players will assume they are default, and go out seeking for a Holy Avenger knowing all about it, expecting it works as written, and protesting when it doesn't.

Perhaps the DMG will provide some examples or random tables. But the "placeholder" idea is not bad. If the DMG doesn't tell it, then only the DM knows it. And that's exactly what helps you make the Bard's Lore important, because Identify will tell the players about the magic item's bonuses, but not about all the additional stuff.

(EDIT: ack... I misread the L&L part about this... it seems Identify will tell you everything by default)

IIRC in the playtest, attunement wasn't actually that much of a thing. It probably required you just a short rest to attune, or anyway an amount of time that only prevents you to switch items in combat. And only a very few items actually required attunement. But an interested DM can switch on the attunement requirement to all magic items but potions and scrolls, and suddenly the whole fantasy setting has a very different flavor than one were only the rare occasional item needs attunement.

 

[Plaguescarred]

Not a fan of the new take on magic items detection and identification, i prefer trial, error plus detect magic and identify spell.


I like the Attunement rules and how it can tie magic items even more with the campaign story.

 

[I'm A Banana]

....better.

Attunement still strikes me as crazy metagame (it's so stressful you can only do it three times!....three?) and largely unnecessary (Dear DMs who don't want their characters to have a lot of magic items: it might help if you can just not give out a lot of magic items?). So it's starting off on the wrong foot.

But the system as a way for describing how one finds out about a magic item's properties (and drawbacks) is pretty solid. The drawbacks and lore bits might have an issue of "sure, you can, but nobody ever does" unless 5e comes with some neat random tables to roll on for that.

And I'm fond of the idea of these items being iconic, character-defining items. But, IMO, if an item is to be iconic and character-defining, it's more of a character feature than a magic item. Excalibur isn't a magic item, it's Arthur taking the "Magic Royal Sword" feat. Dizzt's figurine isn't just some treasure, it's Drizzt's "PokePanther" alternate class feature. Achilles's armor isn't just a piece of equipment, its part of his "Epic War Hero" theme. That is, it's based in the character, not in the item. That's an entirely different kind of game element than "look at this sweet sword I found in this dragon's lair," and it seems odd to put them both in the same bucket. It's kind of weak to have your character-defining magic item dependent on your DM giving it to you.

So better. It still doesn't do away with my central problems with attunement, but I could see adopting the "attunement process" as a way of discovering what a complex magic item does and is all about, and dropping the apparently pointless metagame cap that the system comes with. And maybe seeing what they do with iconic items and adpoting it for a feat or an alternate class feature or something. Better. There's something usable here.